August 23, 2012

How public is a police takedown?

Several Spec journalists are at a downtown Hamilton patio having an
afterwork drink and saying goodbye to a departing colleague. Steps away, near
their patio seats a mini-van screeches and stops, blocks a car and several
police with guns get out and yell, “police, hands up.”

There are at two vehicles, maybe three, with police on the
scene. The vehicles and policemen are all unmarked.

Susan Clairmont, a Spec columnist who regularly writes about
police and crime, walks over and starts taking photos with her mobile phone.
She tweets two photos. That’s enough before one of the police officers walks
over and aggressively challenges her. He wants to know who she is and why she
is taking photos.

Another police officer jumps in and dials down the tone. He
explains they are dealing with something and the officers don’t want to be
identified.

I’m not questioning the investigation. I do challenge the
notion that identities must be kept secret.

It doesn’t matter who Susan is, although she did identify
herself as a Spec reporter. There were several other people around and for all
I know they took photos as well. It’s not unusual today for people to take pictures
and video in public.

Susan published the photos on Twitter and immediately caught
flak from some who said the identity of undercover officers should be protected
and media should be complicit in helping. Some people who work in the media say they automatically never take pictures of undercover officers. I don't know how they know they are undercover.

The police stop was made in public, in the early evening when there
was plenty of light outside. It was made in front of several bars with outdoors
patios. There were easily 25 people who watched what was going on.

I don’t buy the secret identity argument. At least one police
officer had a black t-shirt that said “POLICE” on it. There is a difference between undercover and
plain clothes and people need to be careful how they toss the terms around.

This was a highly-visible stop, by armed police on a public street in the city’s downtown core. The argument that
police officers in these situations can’t be identified doesn’t hold water. If
the officer involved is a deep undercover Serpico-type, then he or she shouldn’t
be involved in a public arrest or takedown.

I know someone will argue that criminals will scour Twitter
and Facebook and other social media sites in the hopes of building a police
identity catalogue and that the media taking such pictures compromises identity
and investigations. Last year Hamilton's police chief argued divulging routine budget requests and information should not happen because criminals would have an edge.

I don’t buy it and believe the argument is more scare
tactic than informed debate.

I’m all for law and order. Go get the bad guys. That’s why
the public pays taxes and gives police special powers of search and seizure. I’m
not questioning the work that went into this operation.

We live in a world of transparency (there needs to be more),
accountability (more as well) and accessible and affordable technology. If you
are going to pull someone over using force or the threat of force, you should
expect public visibility and scrutiny.

Comments

I understand the problem created by taking photos of a police takedown, but can't this be avoided simply by either not having any undercover officers involved in a public takedown or, if they must be, have them wear hoods or masks. Aren't they blowing their own cover when they appear IN PUBLIC with a squad of men identifying themselves as police?

If the police officers wanted to protect their identity, they would send a marked cruiser to carry out their traffic stop. This is standard practice in my area. Even if it was a high risk takedown, tactical unit(s) could be called in. There's no need for an unmarked/undercover unit to be on scene.

Everyone is so fascinated with what police do I can respect that. Plain clothes officers work in a capacity that allows them to mingle with the population sometimes undetected. Even though UC officers remain secretive in their operations there back up alot of the time is plain clothes officers. It could cause grave officer safety issues if a plain clothes officer is spotted, it may give target suspects an advantage in figuring who's who in the crowd. Watch the dramatic scenes unfold in the streets, but put your cameras away. A lengthy operation is worth more than an onlookers 2 minutes of fame

My brother in law is a cop, but not in Hamilton. When he was in the drug unit, they would have to participate in the arrests of their suspects. The very next day, they may be the undercover officer making a purchase in another investigation. They are not trying to play both sides of the fence here, they have a job to do and not enough officers to designate some to do the "take-down/arrest" stuff (that makes the paper) while others do just the undercover stuff. On a side note, he says all his dealings with his local media were fine. They would blur or obscure his face, or take the pictures from angles that protected his identity.

If there were more public access to the police "takedown" details of Andrew Osidacz in 2006, the same officer might not have been in a position in 2010 to shoot an 18-year-old in the back to prevent him from committing suicide. Should law-abiding citizens not be alerted to avoid certain cops for their own safety?

I appreciate the author's understanding of the differences between working in plain clothes and truly being "undercover." However, these plain clothes officers most likely don't normally operate wearing apparel covered in police markings. They may not be infiltrating criminal organizations in an undercover capacity but their job is hindered when criminals under investigation tomorrow or the next week recognize the guy in a t-shirt driving an unmarked sedan from front-page news.

Why did the undercover (not plains clothes) officers blow their own cover by acting as police in public? As Martini mentioned they are responsible for blowing their own cover. If they wanted to keep their identity secret they should have worn masks. To do otherwise is both childish and frankly stupid behaviour.

There's nothing childish about the law or the approach here. Anyone in the public has every right to take photos and to display them, and the point is that the photographer should not have "caught flak" for her actions. If the undercover officers were concerned with being identified they wouldn't be in public alongside other officers. They themselves are solely responsible for foolishly blowing their own cover in that situation.

Have to agree - had I been sitting there I'd a done same ie snap & tweet. IMHO when a cop appears in public to do their duty at that moment "undercover" doesn't work anymore...and the pubic has a right to that kind of news too...

Good points. If its in public, its public. Its a gross encroachment on civil rights to suppress the ability of the public to communicate events that happen in public. Surely there's police protocols to protect the identity of an undercover during a daylight takedown.

I have to quickly point out that I wasn't arguing on the grounds of being able to video tape and take photos. But when you begin to publish them publically (to those who were NOT present) it poses some very serious questions. Social media and media in general is a tool (you should know all too well) that can be detrimental to public safety if not done intelligently. You did the right thing by questioning and taking evidence. You did the wrong thing by publically displaying the event (in an attempt to gain recognition, let's be honest)regardless of the consequence because you saw it as your 'right'. 'Right' and 'Duty' are too loosely connected in today's society and responsibility goes both ways.

You make some very good points. 'Police' have, for centuries, taken advantage of their power. In today's society we need to protect our own rights (it seems) and ensure that we know the limits of the legal system. However, I think where you go wrong, is your sense of 'otherworldly' entitlement and your vehement disobeyance. It seems you are trying to make a political statement, which is noted, rather than understand the complexities of these situations. All you had to do was blur the faces of the police officers. You would have still gotten the story out and had back up evidence given any one of your conspiracy theories arises. You have to understand that your selfishness might impede a very serious criminal coming to justice. All in all, good message and good article, but your approach is childish and misses many key points while focusing to strong on others.